Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 8;22(9):1624–1634. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000132

Table 4.

Adjusted* prevalence of marketing characteristics, by racial segregation and corporate status, of surveyed stores (n 139) in Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN, USA, July–November 2014

Racial segregation* Corporate status*
White dominant Racially mixed POC dominant Corporate/franchise Independently owned
n % 95 % CI % 95 % CI % 95 % CI % 95 % CI % 95 % CI
Healthy interior advertisements 138 22·1 12·3, 36·5 22·9 14·3, 34·7 12·6 4·1, 32·7 25·0 15·4, 38·0 13·7 7·2, 24·5
Unhealthy interior advertisements 138 68·7 53·5, 80·7 61·3 48·9, 72·5 60·0 39·7, 77·3 74·3d 62·1, 83·6 51·0e 38·9, 63·1
Healthy impulse buys 139 25·7 15·1, 40·2 29·7 20·0, 41·7 35·3 19·4, 55·2 32·2 21·8, 44·9 28·0 18·5, 40·0
Unhealthy impulse buys 139 98·8a 91·6, 100 90·8a,b 84·8, 96·7 86·7b 77·0, 96·4 98·8d 92·6, 100 85·4e 79·3, 91·4

POC, people of colour.

Unlike superscript letters distinguish significant differences (P≤0·05) among racial segregation categories (a,b) and among corporate status categories (d,e). Categories sharing same superscript letter were not significantly different.

*

Models are mutually adjusted for racial segregation and corporate status.

Results are from a linear model because the logistic model would not converge.